The appointment model of baptism
This is the tenth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.
We’re still considering the question, is baptism an act of a local church? Some Baptists have argued that it is, and they have proposed three different models of how baptism is a congregational action:
The direct church action model - Local churches may not delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism. The validity of baptism is dependent on the personal presence and action of the congregation in each case.
The ordination model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism, but only to ordained ministers. The validity of baptism is dependent on the baptism and ordination of the administrator.
The appointment model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism to any member appointed by the church. The validity of baptism is not dependent on the baptism or ordination of the administrator.
Two posts ago, we examined the direct church action model advanced by J.R. Graves, and we rejected his theory that the validity of baptism depends on the physical presence of a congregation in every case. In our last post, we assessed the ordination model held by many older Baptists in America, and we concluded that there is no scriptural basis for making the validity of baptism depend on the personal baptism or ministerial ordination of the administrator. In this post, we will consider the third of these models, which I have termed the appointment model.
Like the ordination model, the appointment model recognizes the validity of baptisms that are administered by a duly authorized agent of a local church, even when the congregation may not be physically present. However, in the appointment model, the validity of baptism depends solely on the authorization of the local church and not the personal qualifications of the administrator.
In this model, a church may appoint one of its members to administer baptism, even if he has never been ordained to the ministry with the laying on of hands. In fact, if an appointed administrator is later discovered to have been unordained, unbaptized, or even unregenerate, the baptisms he performed are nevertheless valid because they were authorized by a local church. In other words, the only essential qualification for an administrator of baptism is the appointment of a local church.
This view first arose in the middle of the 19th century, in conjunction with the rise of Landmarkism. It was most clearly advocated by A.C. Dayton in his book Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions published in 1858, with an introductory essay by J.R. Graves. Dayton’s arguments were very influential—in fact, it would be Dayton’s appointment model that would go on to be widely adopted by Landmark Baptists, rather than Graves’ direct church action model.
In his book, Dayton explains that the administration of baptism is an official act of a church which does not depend on the personal qualifications of the administrator:
We surely ought to know that for a Baptist Church to recognize one’s official acts he must be a Baptist minister in good and regular standing in some Baptist church. It is not because he has been baptized that we recognize his official acts, but because he is a member and a minister duly authorized to perform them; and when he ceases to be either the one or the other, those churches who know the facts, must and will, if they be faithful in their duty, disown him as a brother, and repudiate his official acts if he should continue to perform them.
The validity of his official acts does not depend on his baptism, or on his piety, or on his orthodoxy, but on the authority which he has received from the Church. So long as he retains this authority, therefore, his acts are valid, and when it is withdrawn the churches must regard them as invalid, as they must the official acts of one who has never received such authority.
(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 86-87, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)
Although he refers here to a Baptist minister, Dayton later makes it explicit that, in his view, the validity of baptism does not depend on the ordination of the administrator:
Elder Waller represents us as contending that “the administrator must be a minister in good standing in a gospel church, or rather, he must be a regular Baptist minister.”
We do not take this ground. We say that the validity of the act, so far as regards the administrator, does not depend upon his baptism, or upon his ordination, but upon the authority to baptize, which he has received from the Church.
(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 127-128, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)
Although he realizes that not every Baptist will agree with him, in Dayton’s view, a local church may appoint even an unordained member to administer baptism:
We have not, in this volume, attempted to determine whether baptism administered by one who is unordained as a minister or evangelist would be valid. We may have incidentally given our personal opinion upon this point, but this was not the question before us … We have, on our part, taken it for granted that the Church may appoint any member she pleases to administer the rite.
(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 184, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)
Dayton goes on to apply his appointment model of baptism to a number of hypothetical scenarios. Would a baptism be valid if it were administered by a minister who lacked valid baptism himself, yet acted with church authority? Dayton says yes.
A Baptist minister, acting by authority of a Baptist Church, has baptized converts, but without having been himself properly baptized—that is to say, he was immersed by a Methodist, or a Presbyterian, or a Campbellite … Is a baptism conferred by him a valid baptism?
We answer upon the principles already laid down, most certainly it is. So long as the Church regards him as a member and a minister, so long, for all official purposes, he is a member and a minister, and a want of right baptism no more invalidates his official acts performed in the name of the Church and by the authority of the Church than a want of right faith would have done.
(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 259-260, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)
What about baptism performed by an unregenerate man acting on behalf of a local church? Dayton holds it to be valid.
An unconverted man is received by the Church as a true convert, and elevated to the ministry. He baptizes scores or hundreds, and at length falls into open sin and is excluded. Does this invalidate the baptisms administered by him while he remained a minister in good standing?
Not at all. So long as he was a member and a minister, his official acts were valid for all Church purposes, whatever his secret personal character before God may have been. The Church in her ignorance believed him to be a true believer, such he professed to be, as such she entrusted to him her ordinances. When she is undeceived, she must depose and exclude him; but till she does so, his official acts are valid.
(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 260-261, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)
On the other hand, what about a true believer, properly baptized, and legitimately ordained to the ministry, who has been unjustly excommunicated? Would baptisms administered by such a man be valid? Not without the authorization of some local church, Dayton says.
A Baptist minister, and a good and pious man, has, without any sufficient fault of his, been excluded from the Church, or deposed from the ministry, and yet goes on baptizing, as though he had been the subject of no such action. Are such baptisms valid?
Clearly, they are not. The validity of the baptism, so far as the administrator is concerned, does not depend, as we have seen, upon his piety or upon his baptism, but upon the authority which he has received, directly or indirectly from a true Church of baptized believers to administer it. He could take no such authority with him out of the Church, and no Baptist Church could recognize any official act of his, however innocent she might believe him to be, unless he had first been restored to Church membership, and again authorized to administer the ordinances by the same Church that deposed and excluded him, or by some other of equal authority with it in the kingdom of Christ.
(Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions, 1858, p. 261, https://books.google.com/books?id=JGkNAAAAYAAJ)
Thus, in Dayton’s view, the only essential qualification for an administrator of baptism is the authorization of a local church. No personal defect can invalidate the baptisms performed by one acting in an official capacity on behalf of a local congregation. And conversely, no baptism can possibly be valid unless it performed by an administrator duly appointed by a local church.
Certainly, this appointment model of baptism has much to commend it. It is remarkably simple. It also doesn’t suffer from the serious defects we’ve discovered in the direct church action model and the ordination model. In light of these inherent advantages, it’s not surprising that the appointment model went on to become the standard view of Landmark Baptists.
There’s really only one question left for us to ask. Is it scriptural?
We’ll begin to answer that question in our next post.